It’s great to see Matt Levine chime in, he often has an incredible well thought out and informed view that is also just incredibly funny to read. That said I am disappointed that he latched on the the entirely imagined idea that this was “profit va safety” which isn’t in any way supported by anything and is just baseless speculation cooked up by spectators.

It’s even directly contrary to the statements from the board and the new CEO, and there is no reason to believe they would lie and keep it hidden if this was in fact their reasoning.

FYI you seem to be shadowbanned, I vouched for this comment but you should probably reach out to hn@ycombinator.com

> it became apparent that the dependencies I was relying on—or considering for use—simply didn't meet the necessary standards

Basically didn’t he just raise money with promises of features, then go to the underlying libs authors with a “you should do all these features for free, so I can argue why all the money I got for them was with it” while doing shit-all himself?

So, basically he’s rounding off his attempt at fundraising on trying to get someone else to do the actual work for free with a “I’m sorry, but I’m keeping the money and not delivering anything”?

> What was left to do?

> Integration with a low-level HTTP library ready for the task.

You mean literally all the actual work to make the product do anything useful…

No one took issue with requests, just being a thin usability interface on top of other peoples work, because it was free and open source and didn’t raise funds to provide the claimed functionality. But the second you start raising funds and don’t want to spend a single dollar on the people who do all of the real work, your a pos, and deserve all the criticism. The second you take the money but bail on the project because others won’t do the work for free for you, you become a con-man.

Probably not going to generate more ethanol than you already get in your morning cup of orange juice

> These mRNA fragments are also heavily engineered in a way sashimi mRNA isn’t.

Could you point to the difference you believe is important? What on earth is “heavily engineered” supposed to mean in the context of mRNA?

> In my template for radical reform of those laws I would like it if any IP is owned by its original creator for up to twenty years from the point of first publication

I’ve always said that I find it wrong that someone who dedicated their life to finding a cure for a life threatening desease is told: “You get 20 years to turn a profit, then it’s a free for all” yet if someone draws a cute mouse we say: “You get your lifetime, plus 75 years of exclusivity then it’s a gray zone case of which derivatives you own and what you can sue for” (looking at Winnie the Pooh’s red shirt).

You’d think that drawings and written content would be ranked lower than literally curing life threatening deseases and saving lives, when it comes to how long we give the inventors and creators to monetize their creations.

The laws reflect that it's much easier to tell someone "you can't watch a film" than "you can't have life-saving treatment".

> someone who dedicated their life to finding a cure

Do you honestly believe that someone who spends their life looking for a cure, does it in the hopes of making lots of cash when they're 60?

If you're that kind of person, there's other professions out there that will let you make bank before you're too old to enjoy it.

> Do you honestly believe that someone who spends their life looking for a cure, does it in the hopes of making lots of cash when they're 60?

It isn't just the creators of the intellectual property, it's the investors.

> If you're that kind of person, there's other professions out there that will let you make bank before you're too old to enjoy it.

From what I hear, that applies even more strongly to the arts than to the STEMs.

I suspect the parent poster was referring to certain professions known for being older than any other one.

That sounds like you're referring to prostitution; I don't know the economics of that, but I'd assumed chmod775 was referring to the FIRE sector.

They can’t be skipped because the players who will skip them are the ones who need them and will then complain about the game as a result bringing down the average score and hurting the games financials.

> The guy is on video eating skin off his goddam toes while lecturing CS. If that dude or any of his followers are antidiversity, they need to look themself in the mirror.

He is a white male who’s in power despite eating toe gunk, while also supporting an environment hostile to woman. He’s in no way a good representation of diversity simply because he’s odd.

It’s not a negotiation if the law dictates that you have to sign and that you are forced to accept a significant discount, which seems to be the core of the case:

> once HHS unilaterally selects a drug for inclusion in the program, its manufacturer is compelled to sign an ‘agreement’ promising to sell the drug to Medicare beneficiaries at whatever ‘fair’ price the agency dictates, which must represent at least a 25% to 60% discount,” the complaint says, calling it “tantamount to extortion.”

> drugmakers don’t have to participate in the negotiations so the federal government is not forcing them to turn over their patented medications

It is a negotiation. Drugmakers can negotiate prices, or refuse and lose access to the single largest purchaser of medication in the United States.

It is ridiculous that drug companies expect tax payers to just accept whatever astronomical prices they feel like charging while private insurers are allowed to negotiate deals.

Here's how I'd 'negotiate' the question. If they want to be able to do business in the US, they could just agree. Else they could choose not to do business in the US.

That seems fair enough, seems to work elsewhere in the world.

"Nice patent you've got there. Would be a shame if we eminent-domained it."

That's extortion. And I'd love to see it.

> “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”

The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.

If I say someone had many of something, then I know for certain that they must have either an even amount or an odd amount. Same goes for few.

It's an analogy, meant to show the similarities between two things in a limited way, to illustrate an idea. They do not have to be exactly the same in every way.